Latest research and knowledge exchange news at Bournemouth University
Reminder: The RDS Funding Development Briefing will be Wednesday at 12 noon. The spotlight will be on the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB).
We will cover:
For those unable to attend, the session will be recorded and shared on Brightspace here.
Invites for these sessions have been disseminated via your Heads of Department.
The Allied Health Professions (AHPs) are the third largest clinical workforce in the NHS and represent a total of 14 professions which are regulated by the Health Care Professions Council and the individual profession specific regulatory bodies. Research is supported nationally and regionally through the Council for Allied Health Professions Research and at BU through our partnership collaboration with the Applied Research Collaboration NIHR Wessex.
To celebrate the 4th Annual AHP day at BU we are showcasing some of the research that is being carried out by the AHP academic community in Dorset.
Dr Katie Collins – Research focuses on the hidden impairments following a stroke and how they impact on individuals participating in active life. I am involved in exploring health equity and the impacts of health inequality and supervising a Dorset Health Care University Foundation Trust (DHCFUT): BU match funded PhD studentship exploring interventions for successful contracture management.’
Dr Vikram Mohan – Current project which has QR funding is aimed at exploring the reliability and validity of the Total Faulty Breathing Scale (TFBS). In clinical practice abnormal breathing patterns are recognised, but there are no scales to quantify the severity of abnormal breathing patterns. These findings will be applied to conditions like Covid-19, COPD etc.
Peter Philips – PhD – “What factors affect resilience in newly qualified paramedics in the UK ambulance service?” Aims to explore stressors that newly qualified paramedics face in their first year of registration, how they seek to cope with those stressors, and what effect these have. This research will have an impact on workforce planning, recruitment, and retention of staff in the NHS.
Helen Ribchester – PhD- Exploring sense making derived from the clinical practice experiences of student Occupational Therapists in India. An This is an IPA study including elements of poetic inquiry, with participants drawn from the students of an occupational therapy programme in an Indian university (SRIHER)
Sara Sayer and Prof Carol Clark – ‘Heading for Trouble’ project, with pump prime funding, involving external stakeholders and an interdisciplinary team from the Faculty of SciTec (Prof Hamid Bouchachia, Prof Hana Burianova, Dr Ala Yankouskaya, Dr Shanti Shankar) aiming to explore brain scans and questions relating to attention and memory in professional footballers. Supporting health in football.
Dr Theo Akudjedu and Dr John Totman – working within the Institute for Medical Imaging and Visualisation (IMIV) a multidisciplinary collaboration of clinicians and scientists using a Siemens 3T MRI scanner for research projects to image liver, pancreatic and biliary disease and the brain.
Dr Ursula Rolfe – co-published with David Partlow a paramedic colleague from practice – Mental Health Care in Paramedic Practice The book provides paramedics with key information on a range of mental health conditions and their management. The roles of paramedics have changed in the last decade with increases in the number of 999 calls associated with the increasing mental health needs of people.
Dr Louise Fazakarley, Dr Katie Collins and Dr Caroline Ellis-Hill – supervising a funded MRes Carrie Tbaily ((DHCFUT) – Exploring caregiver perspectives of adults with severe and profound and multiple Learning disabilities accessing sedentary hydrotherapy.
Dr Louise Fazakarley – Pump prime funding to; examine the effectiveness of Physiotherapy in the early stage of Parkinson’s disease (PD): a review of the literature and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) consultation to identify research priorities for patients with early-stage PD
Sam Page (Dorset County Hospital (DCH)), Dr Louise Fazakarley and Dr Zoe Sheppard (DCH) -ARC Wessex NIHR funding to undertake a service evaluation relating to patients who sustain pubic rami fracture and their management at home supporting better care for patients.
Dr Caroline Ellis-Hill – research focus is on humanising practice, based on existential understandings from lifeworld approaches and focuses on what make us feel human. Humanising practices are those that incorporate fully human knowing and support a sense of connection and wellbeing. Caroline has funding from the Welcome Trust – Exploring performance arts education for the stroke rehabilitation pathway, is supervising PhD students as part of the INNOVATEDIGNITY project funded by the European Commission and NIHR funding for a multicentre RCT of community-based arts and health intervention to increase psychological wellbeing in people following stroke.
Prof Carol Clark – supervising Rosie Harper (University Hospitals Dorset (UHD) with Dr Carly Stewart (BUBS) and Sally Sheppard (UHD) on a UHD; ARC Wessex NIHR; BU match funded studentship ‘Nudging: a theoretical concept for a very practical approach to pelvic floor muscle training’ Aimed at improving adherence to exercises aimed at reducing incontinence and improving health and well-being of women. Carol is currently Co-PI with Stefi Andrew (Portsmouth Hospitals University Trust) and Dr Zoe Sheppard (DCH)on NIHR ARC Wessex Exploring digital technologies for hand rehabilitation and Danni Swaithe (UHD), Dr Louise Johnson (UHD) Dr Shanti Shankar (SciTech) NIHR ARC Wessex, exploring the role of attentional focus on learning for physical recovery in acute stroke, research initiation award.
Prof Jane Murphy Co-Lead of the Aging and Dementia Research Centre current project includes NIHR ARC Wessex funded, DONOR project (Digital cOachiNg fOr fRailty) to investigate whether a digital approach could be used alongside support from health coaches to help the lifestyle management of older people with frailty in its early stages. The DONOR project will look at whether these technologies can reduce the burden on health and care services by offering person-centred care and advice. The multidisciplinary research team will work together with stakeholders (people with frailty, carers, health coaches and AHPs) to develop and test a new digital approach, implemented across Dorset and West Hampshire. Jane provides consultancy services, works with the Wessex Academic Health Science Network and International partners and also has funding as part of the ASPIRE project with European funding.
Dr Jonathan Williams – is currently involved in projects broadly investigating clinical and sports biomechanics, including wobble board rehabilitation for diabetic neuropathy; learning and retention of infant CPR skills, quantifying spinal stiffness and movement through body worn sensors; facilitating physical activity through wearables; measurement of player load in Badminton and shoulder sensory-motor control. He is currently supervising MRes and PhDs projects with AHPs including Andy Watt and Debora Almeida.
Debora Almeida PhD – A novel output-based approach to infant CPR training to maximise skill retention and improve patient outcome after cardiac arrest. Paediatric cardiac arrest is a worldwide health problem with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Positive outcomes depend on high quality CPR. However, infant CPR skills decay within weeks or months after training. This project aims to create a tailored retraining schedule based on the performance and retention of iCPR skills.
Parliament was still in recess whilst the Conservative Party Conference takes place. We have the news from the Conference, some movement on Essay Mills and several new reports. And we have a big primer on student finance, ahead of the budget.
After the first day of the Conservative Party conference Wonkhe speculate what the personalities and lack of fiscal room for manoeuvre mean for HE in the forthcoming spending review (looming on the later October horizon):
New Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi gave a keynote address at the Conservative Party Conference. It focussed heavily on schools (including emphasis on English and maths). Nadhim also gave HE a nod in crediting Oxford University for the vaccine development. The Government’s intention towards T levels remains.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak promised new scholarships in artificial intelligence:
2,000 elite AI scholarships for disadvantaged young people within the Government’s focus on innovative technology which he stated was a sign of the party’s ambition for the future.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson made a particularly colourful rambling speech to entertain the Conference attendees. It was light on HE content. Within the context of levelling up he questioned why York (2 universities) had so many graduates yet Doncaster (a FE/HE college) didn’t. Perhaps not the best example his aides could have chosen.
Lots of focussed discussion took place during the Conservative Party Conference fringe events. Here are some summaries of the content prepared by Dods with bold emphasis added so you can pick out the most relevant HE points.
On Tuesday the DfE stated it will introduce a ban on ‘essay mills’ via the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill which is currently making its way through Parliament. The Government intends to make it a criminal offence to provide, arrange or advertise cheating services for financial gain to students taking a qualification at any institution in England providing post-16 education including universities.
You’ll recall from our regular coverage on contract cheating that Lord Storey has campaigned to this end for a long period, including introducing two Private Member’s Bills (PMB) which the Government was not opposed to but neither succeeded. In contrast to Lord Storey’s PMB the DfE’s intention is to apply the legislation to all post-16 providers including colleges and sixth forms.
Previously the Government urged the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education), UUK and the NUS to collaborate and produce institutional guidance on combatting the threat from essay mills and compiled guidance for students to make them better aware of the consequences to send the clear message that these services are not legitimate.
Minister for Skills Alex Burghart said: Essay mills are completely unethical and profit by undermining the hard work most students do. We are taking steps to ban these cheating services. We have also announced a new measure to make sure all young people receive broader careers guidance so everyone can get the advice that’s right for them. [Perhaps meaning to pursue T levels and an alternative route than university.]
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) paper Gender differences in subject choice leads to gender pay gap immediately after graduation highlights how course choice exacerbates the gender pay gap. IFS notes:
Research and innovation review: BEIS published the terms of reference for the Review of the Research, Development and Innovation Organisational Landscape. The independent review (announced on 22 July) will be led by Sir Paul Nurse with the final report expected during Spring 2022. The goals of the Review are to:
The Review will consider the full and varied policy and funding context within which RDI-performing organisations are set up and operate. The Review is focused on the landscape of organisations that deliver research rather than on mechanisms for funding research and will:
Research Budget distribution: MillionPlus, the Association for Modern Universities, published a policy briefing calling for the pledged increase of the R&D budget to £22bn to be shared more equitably around the country in the name of the Government’s levelling up goal. The briefing emphasises the importance of re-balancing the way research in the UK is funded so that modern universities, many of which sit in marginalised areas of the country, and those hit hardest by the pandemic, can do more to support a world-class system of research and innovation, for the benefit of their regions and the country. Recommendations:
MillionPlus also published Innovate and generate: modern universities supporting local businesses aiming to highlight the partnerships that modern universities with local roots and an industry-facing outlook have with businesses in their regions. The document emphasises their calls for Government to prioritise and dedicate specific R&D funding streams for such relationships and the positive impact it can have on levelling up the UK.
Quick news
Student Hardship funding: Hitting the news last week (from the July OfS Board papers) was that £1.66 million of the additional £70 million hardship funding provided by the Government was unspent and recovered by the OfS.
Wonkhe say: Despite overwhelming evidence that the hardships caused by Covid-19 were near universal, the government was wedded to the idea of individual student problems rather than the systemic issues felt across the whole cohort. There were conditions attached to allocation: providers had to distribute funds to students that expressed a specific need, and all of the money needed to be handed out by 31 July…The complexity of existing hardship fund arrangements at providers (many had to recruit extra staff to administer the process) and the tight deadline (three months for the final tranche) made it difficult to get the money to where it was needed.
The Mental Health Foundation released new research combining evidence with expert opinion and public views. You can read about it here but in short it recommends (in order of popularity):
Almost as popular (chosen by at least 45% of the public panel) were:
Our research shows that it’s the fundamentals of life that protect our mental health: our finances, our relationships and our experiences
The DfE updated the information on who is eligible for undergraduate, postgraduate and further education financial support from Student Finance England. The update includes new policy notes on the rights to home fee status and student support for people covered by the Withdrawal Agreements who make a valid late application to the EU Settlement Scheme, and rights for joining family members under the EU Settlement Scheme:
Possible changes to fees and funding have been in the news a lot over the autumn in the build up to the Comprehensive Spending Review on 27th October when, yet again, we are promised the final response from the government to the Augar report and an outcome for the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding, which Augar was meant to inform.
Some changes have already happened:
The main pre-announcement that we are expecting to see followed through with a consultation at the end of the month is on minimum entry requirements. This is a technique to reduce or at least limit the growing cost of the student loan portfolio by applying a floor to the academic entry requirements that applicants must meet in order to qualify for a student loan. Students could still go to university, if they pay their own way, of course, or are able to borrow the funding another way. Widely criticised as a cap on aspiration and a retrograde step for social mobility, because of the risk that many of the potential students who will be excluded from university will be those whose prior attainment does not reflect their true potential, and because many of those will be in that position as a result of some form of disadvantage. We have commented on this extensively before and note that Augar suggested that it be deployed as a last resort if universities did not clean up their act on quality. We note that we are not convinced that there is necessarily a direct link between “quality” and low entry tariffs and that it feels a bit early in the cycle for last resorts. But there you are. The definition of quality debate is a much bigger one that is ongoing now as the OfS looks at its licence conditions.
And there could be many other things announced. Most of the press coverage recently has been about a potential cut to the repayment threshold (increased by Theresa May in a shock move after the 2017 election that cost the government a lot of money). This idea has not been well received by students or recent graduates. We note that retrospective changes to the terms of loans (other than interest rates) are not usually allowed (for banks, for example), and that there is a general feeling that students and recent graduates, who have not had a great couple of years, will be asked to fill a government financial hole “because they don’t vote conservative anyway”. Given that Theresa May put the floor up precisely because she was worried about the so-called youthquake in the 2017 election, the link seems to be a fair one. The Tories in 2017 didn’t have the majority that they have now. And the financial hole is very big.
BU staff can read our May 2021 summary of what else we might have to look forward to here.
Given that there is likely to be a flurry of press stories, better or less-well informed opinion, social media excitement etc, around any changes, we wanted to give you a bit of context. Apologies to regular readers or those with students in the family who know all this, all too well, but here we go. And apologies to readers in the devolved nations, we are focussing on England here. Also we are focussing on undergraduates.
Undergraduate tuition fees
These are capped. The cap hasn’t moved for a long time. There is very little prospect of it moving for a long time to come.
They are not tuition fees. The OfS in their most recent publication on the subject (well worth a read) calls them “course fees”. They aren’t really that either.
When they were introduced they replaced a big chunk of government funding for universities and, apart from those universities with huge numbers of international or post-graduate students, or huge proportions of research or donor income, these fees are the main source of income for most universities. They therefore pay for staff, services, loan interest, depreciation, building maintenance, IT, OfS registration fees, and so on – the lot. They famously cross subsidise research which is generally funded at less than cost.
If a student has a tuition fee loan (most do as otherwise they need to pay up front), the fee is paid by the Student Loan Company directly to the university in three chunks across the year. The biggest chunk (50%) is paid in the summer AFTER the student has completed most of the year. This helps avoid a situation where the university gets money for students who don’t stick around. But it also explains why cash flow across the year is a talking point in universities, and why a temporary change took place last year when the second instalment was paid early because of concerns about financial sustainability of universities in the pandemic.
Maintenance loans
These loans are made available to UK students to help with their living and other costs while at university. They replaced the grant system. Before loans were introduced, if students didn’t qualify for a grant they needed parental support or another source of income. That is still the case. There is a minimum amount for a maintenance loan, but above that loan eligibility is means tested according to the income of the student’s family. So the vast majority of students in the UK still need parental support for their maintenance costs, and if that isn’t available, they will need to work or borrow money instead.
You can see more in the SLC document for 2021/22 students.
Maintenance costs are a huge issue for many students. Unlike the tuition fee, which is paid by the SLC to the university, this is cash the students need to find and spend. There has been a lot of coverage of the high cost of accommodation in many places (often more than the maximum loan) and of the particular unfairness of the situation over the last two years when students were told by the government not to return to accommodation they had paid for, with money neither they nor their families could afford. That’s a long and separate story.
Student loans
Although they are called loans, student finance arrangements are very different from the usual loan arrangements we are all used to, and this is where it gets complicated and political. So apologies again. This very useful paper from the House of Commons library (September 2021) has lots of context on this.
As noted above, student loans are made up of two items, tuition fees and maintenance loans (you can also use a student loan for postgraduate support but that’s a different story).
Interest starts to accrue on the loan balance straight away, while the student is at university. Interest rates are very high – compared to some other rates available in the market. But the interest rate charged varies over time and according to the income of the graduate (not their family, this time).
From an SLC document describing 2021/11 arrangements:
Martin Lewis explained the latest rate for Money Saving Expert in October 2021:
Repayment arrangements
This is where student loans really start to look different from “normal” loans. The student finance arrangements we have are not really loans at all. Really what we have here is a graduate tax. But shhh – it isn’t called that. Because people don’t like taxes, so it could never be called a tax.
The notional amount of the student finance grows throughout out the time that a student is studying, and interest is added during that time and afterwards. So far so like a loan.
But – graduates only start to repay it from the April after their course ends, and only when their income reaches a threshold. Most students are on what is called “plan 2” and we are going to use their data:
In other words, repayments are means tested, and only the income over the threshold is used to calculate the repayments. Clearly in a lot of cases that means that the amount you are repaying is not enough to cover the interest that is also still accruing. So the overall amount just keeps on going up, just as it would with a “normal” loan if you didn’t pay enough off each month.
The other big difference with a “normal” loan, though, is what happens at the end. The whole thing, interest and all, is written off after 30 years from the April after your course finished. That is a big and growing cost to the government. This very useful paper from the House of Commons library (September 2021) gives some context on what this means.
So when students say that they are “paying” tuition fees – they aren’t paying it yet, and in fact most will never pay it all back. Only the highest earners, mostly men, will pay it all back. The paper has charts showing the difference for women and men.
We should also note that the loan is not treated like a normal loan when you are taking out a normal loan, either. Your potential repayments are taken into account when considering your ability to pay, but it is not treated the same way for your credit score as a typical loan would be. So it is treated more like a mobile phone contract than a car loan.
So it’s really a graduate tax which stops after 30 years. Or an income dependent contingent loan (which is written off after 30 years).
Potential changes
The government would clearly like to recover more of this money. It must be noted that it was never intended that it would all be repaid, however. When the system was set up it was deliberately intended that only the students with higher income would pay it all back. This was meant to be progressive.
That’s why there has been little sympathy for arguments to reduce the interest rate. On the face of it, students seem to be “paying” a high interest rate. But they aren’t in fact paying it at all, and most of them will never pay it. It accrues at a high rate, and then most of it is written off. So increasing the interest rate may be an option instead:
For a long time the government was able to keep this cost “off the balance sheet” until the auditing rules were changed and the whole cost was added to the national debt. That started to change perceptions about it.
And of course, since the scheme was introduced, the number of students going to university has increased, we are just emerging from a demographic dip. So the potential cost just keeps on going up.
We have already mentioned changes to the repayment threshold may be under discussion. That has all sorts of consequences – but they are not very progressive (another HoC library paper):
There has also been talk of extending the payment term from 30 to 35 years (Augar said 40) and increasing the rate of repayment (different from the interest rate). Another helpful briefing paper here.
What next
We’ll see. But we think there will be some tinkering with repayment arrangements – despite the fact that these would be retrospective changes to the agreed terms. And there may be other changes that will reduce the number of people eligible to take these loans out in the future – as well as the minimum qualifications requirement.
Or there may a cut in the tuition fee. The latter would reduce the loan book and the notional interest – and give the government more direct control of university funding though the use of “strategic priorities” to top up (some of) the difference – consistent with the current direction as noted at the start of this section.
There could be caps on the numbers of students studying particular subjects, or at particular institutions (if they don’t meet quality thresholds, for example). Note in this context that the government is increasingly linking definitions of quality to “outcomes”, by which they mean highly skilled employment and relative earnings. And that is a whole different subject which we have discussed before, and will again.
The Lifelong Education Commission, supported by ResPublica and chaired by former universities minister Chris Skidmore MP, published The Pathway to Lifelong Education: Reforming the UK’s Skills System. It is the first of 8 reports the Commission has planned on on lifelong learning and the UK’s skills system. The Commission recommends how the barriers to adult learning can be removed; what future investment is needed to support this; and what change is needed to ensure the maximum flexibility that will benefit learners and deliver on the promise of a whole system change for lifelong education.
Recommendations:
Former universities minister Chris Skidmore said: If there is one policy to deliver ‘levelling up’, it is adult learning and skills. Acquiring new skills is something we all do throughout our lives. Yet the formal process for acquiring them is incredibly constrained. There are too few opportunities to return to learning for those who have left it. And those willing to retrain or re-skill can barely see the wood for the trees; the pathways are so complex.
The government is embracing adult learning at just the right time. The Lifelong Learning Entitlement, combined with the prospect of modular and course-based learning and the expansion of Level 4 and 5 provision, has the potential to create new journeys into learning for those for whom a graduate route was not the way. But if these reforms are to succeed, it is essential that new partnerships are forged between HE and FE providers.
The OfS have published an ominous paper on this.
This supports the position in the recently closed consultation on quality conditions.
New condition B4.2:
…the provider must ensure that: …c. academic regulations are designed to ensure that relevant awards are credible; ….
“credible” means that, in the reasonable opinion of the OfS, relevant awards reflect students’ knowledge and skills, and for this purpose the OfS may take into account factors which include, but are not limited to: …ii. whether students are assessed effectively and whether assessments are valid and reliable; ….
Guidance re “Credible”: …identifying circumstances in which it is likely to be concerned about the credibility of a provider’s qualifications:…c. Students are not penalised for poor technical proficiency in written English. For example, for assessments that would reasonably be expected to take the form of written work in English and for which the OfS, employers and taxpayers, would reasonably expect such proficiency, the provider’s assessment policy and practices do not penalise poor spelling, punctuation or grammar, such that students are awarded marks that do not reflect a reasonable view of their performance of these skills. ….
Key bits from the report itself:
If we were to consider compliance with our current regulatory requirements for the practices described in the case studies, we would be likely to have regulatory concerns about the following:
We are currently consulting on proposals to clarify and strengthen our regulatory requirements for quality and standards. We will consider all consultation responses carefully before reaching a decision about whether or not we should take forward our proposals, in full or in part. For illustrative purposes, if we were to implement the proposals as set out in the consultation document, the practices we have seen would be likely to raise concerns in relation to proposed conditions B1, B2, B4 and B5
If the policies and approaches identified in this report are leading to students getting higher marks than they otherwise would, for instance because poor proficiency in written English is not being routinely assessed, then this not only undermines the rigour of assessment processes, but also contributes to unexplained grade inflation. 55. We will test this hypothesis for individual providers through our investigatory work.
DCMS published the findings of an independent Evaluation of the Local Digital Skills Partnerships which assessed the impact made by six regions operating Local Digital Skills Partnerships (LDSP). LDSPs are designed to build regional capacity to improve digital skills capability at all levels. They bring together and connect partners from the public, private and third sectors to upskill the current workforce, advance digital inclusion, and raise awareness of the importance of digital skills regionally. The evaluation found the LSDP model to be agile and worked effectively. Therefore, DCMS have confirmed they’ll consider the key findings, and look to build on this early success and expand the model to other parts of the country.
Academic lockdown time recovery: A Wonkhe blog on the impact of lockdown on academic parents with suggestions on how to help them catch up on missed research and professional time:
To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.
External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.
Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.
JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER
VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer
Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk
Postgraduate researchers and supervisors, hopefully you have seen your monthly update for researcher development e-newsletter sent earlier this week. If you have missed it, please check your junk email or you can view it within the Researcher Development Programme on Brightspace.
The start of the month is a great time to reflect on your upcoming postgraduate researcher development needs and explore what is being delivered this month as part of the Doctoral College Researcher Development Programme and what is available via your Faculty or Department. Remember some sessions only run once per year, so don’t miss out.
Please also subscribe to your Brightspace announcement notifications for updates when they are posted.
If you have any questions about the Researcher Development Programme, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Natalie (Research Skills & Development Officer)
pgrskillsdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk
Congratulations to Dr. Pramod Regmi and Dr. Nirmal Aryal on the acceptance of their paper ‘Risk of kidney health among returnee Nepali migrant workers: A survey of nephrologists’ [1]. This paper has been accepted by the Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, after having been rejected previous by another scientific journal . The reason for rejection was the small sample size of 38 nephrologists (=medical specialists in kidney disease). We think one of the reasons for acceptance of this research by the Asian Journal of Medical Sciences is the high proportion (74.5%) of all Nepal’s nephrologists who participated in this national study. Although the absolute number of participants is low there are only 51 kidney experts in the whole country and three-quarters took part in this study!
Dr. Nirmal Aryal was until recently based in the Department of Midwifery and Health Sciences and he will be starting later this month as a Research Associate at Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Trust. Dr. Pramod Regmi is Senior Lecturer in International Health in the Department of Nursing Sciences. This paper was also co-authored with a nephrologist Dr. Arun Sedhai based in Chitwan (Nepal) and a public health expert based at the UN organisation, International Organization for Migration (IOM).
This paper which will be Open Access and hence freely available for any reader across the globe adds to the growing research evidence published by Bournemouth University’s researchers on migration and health, especially of migrants from Nepal [2-21].
Well done!
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)
References:
Octobers Seminar – 12:00-13:00 on 27th October
Ethnographic research with offenders has become increasingly difficult to carry out in the UK and internationally. Requirements of institutional review boards (IRB) are stringent. Research that involves fieldwork in high-risk settings is often turned down, which in effect silences the voices of vulnerable and marginalised populations within them. Furthermore, witnessing and recording crimes that are not known to the police is risky and could put the researcher in a position where they are legally obligated to give up the information. Ethnography with criminals may also require elements of covert observation in order to be successful and protect the safety of both the researcher and the researched. Covert research is especially difficult to get approved and is frowned upon for being deceptive. It can, however, benefit participants by illuminating hidden injustices, whilst leading to proposals for progressive policy change. This talk draws upon data from a 5-year semi-covert ethnography of the illicit drug trade in a city in England. It outlines the ethical and methodological challenges of conducting ethnographic research on hard-to-reach criminal groups.
There is so much advice, guidance for beginners and information available that it is hard to write anything original on the subject. Ironically, that’s exactly what grant writing is about: crafting an original, timely, (socially) relevant, scientifically robust, considered and impactful project often in conjunction with great partners. And that pretty much sums it up. But it may take a bit of time for it all to come together…So where might the journey start?
Mine your expertise. For me this still means on occasions returning to the roots of my PhD. I developed my first full-blown funding application during my PhD. I spotted what I thought was an exciting gap, I found a funder interested in post-conflict research, I teamed up with my supervisor and together generated support from the then President of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia. And off we went to develop a proposal. We made it through the first round and then, a change of guard at the Court meant we could no longer rely on their support. We withdrew the application. Bad luck, but lots learnt. Particularly not to get deterred by a snooty Professor asking ‘why ever would you like to develop that for?’ or a research administrator ‘but that has been done before, right?’ In fact, the same core idea, arguably, far better conceived with a different approach, validated by experts, a multidisciplinary team and virtual technological know-how is presently under consideration as a science communication project. This is 12 years after the original submission; an ‘up-cycling’ of sorts.
Checks & Balances. My second funding application submitted in collaboration with my colleague and mentor Dr Howard Davis was thankfully successful. And it resulted in a co-authored book. A funder recommendation was the creation of a steering group for the project, something that I have since adopted for other applications resulting in lovely, continuous engagement with colleagues beyond the institution for the purpose of project delivery. A steering committee or advisory group is well worth having and they will make the most wonderful advocates for your research expertise.
Look through Examples. Assuming that I am in the initial planning phase where I know
then, apart from notifying RDS and your departmental lead with the Intention to bid and thinking about a suitable internal peer reviewer, I visit the Brightspace library of prior successful funding applications. And I look through those. Every funder has different structural requirements and it is helpful to see how others have approached it.
Pro-act, not re-act. Subscribing to Research Professional means that every Friday an email with the latest funding calls matching my keyword search arrives. And that helps you get a rough idea of the funding landscape and what are recurring themes and calls. And I put notes in my calendar if I think that a call might be of interest to me in a year or so. Responding de novo to a sudden, non-recurring funding call seems like a tall order to me unless you have some prior ideas, established links and method expertise that you can build on.
Finally, try to convince the reviewer at every opportunity that you, your idea, project plan, team and network are best and uniquely placed to conduct this study now! I’d like to hope that the journey has an element of linear progression and that one gets better at answering every aspect of the question ‘why should they fund me?’
What can I say? Achieving the funding with the British Academy, and embarking on the research has been one of my highlights of my academic career! The project has just completed, but I’d like to tell you a little bit more how it all happened, what it means to me, and offer some light-hearted moments, if I may.
First off – My journey to achieving funding was not an easy route. Looking at my data, I achieved success with the British Academy after a number of unsuccessful applications (over thirteen years) with the ESRC, the AHRC, Leverhulme, the Nominet trust, and a few with the British Academy as well. Well actually, It took seven failed bids with the British Academy, before success. Persistence, inevitably is a key facet, and it may not be as simple as, ‘ill respond to the feedback, and next time I will be successful’. As we know feedback can be highly subjective, and whilst you might get an idea of what you should have done better, there are no guarantees, or necessarily templates to follow. For example I have looked a good range of successful bids, and whilst you might get an idea of what might need to be presented, sometimes that can be misleading. You have your own voice, style and mode of narrative delivery, and you should not forsake that in seeking success. You need to sell your ideas, as much as yourself. I should know more about that, as prior to my academic career, I worked as a sales executive for quite a few years, and I have learned that its all about personal credibility, a product that offers good value for money, availability and endurance.
Writing funding bids, is a bit like working in the sales industry. You do need to get the order, but you have to be continually selling. Its about the process of continually selling, as much as the destination of the order.
So maybe learn from my experiences, which I am going to try and work through in this short blog.
There is no magical recipe to achieve external funding, but I think the most significant is ‘Don’t Give up’ in the immortal words of Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush Success can never be guaranteed, but you need to treat it like a process rather than a destination that is essential for you to arrive at.
Over the years that I have submitted bids, it’s been upsetting waiting for the deadline to pass, checking emails to see if you are going to get that magical acceptance message, and many times receiving the sad news, that ‘this time your bid was not successful, and you should not be deterred from trying again’. This seems like the end of a journey, but I would argue – for whatever reason you think you have been turned down, you should treat it like a new beginning, a chance to rework – rethink – ‘get back on your feet’ and ‘dust off your clothes’. As Kelly Clarkson says ‘What Doesn’t kill You Makes You Stronger’. OK that can seem a bit trite, because it can be devastating feeling rejected, and sometimes you don’t recover, and I think this is the essence of what we need to confront, in our research endeavors. It’s great to feel emboldened by a new sense of animation, where you start again, and you clearly see what you now need to do, but it’s not that easy. For example you should be wary not to Climb Every Mountain – you do need to be selective, and maybe you have missed an easier route, to where you want to go.
As I have learned over the many years of not being successful with external funding, there are three key elements that we need to consider:
For me most of my previous unsuccessful funding bids were ‘theoretical’, mostly I was thinking though how ideas can change though research. My ability, my desire and the means were too focused on my experiences of research, rather than what’s out there in the ‘real world’. The big shift for me was to conceive that research should be about process, impact and participants, rather than necessarily theories, debates and destinations.
So let’s take my research ideas as an example. Over the years I have researched LGBT identity in the media. I have produced a number of publications, presented at international conferences, and established an academic professional identity. This is certainly useful – to be perceived as an appropriate person to do funded research, but you need to demonstrate that you may be aware of what’s happening in the wider world, and what needs to be looked at.
LGBT studies is highly significant, but it can’t be just theoretical. How many times have I attended conferences and witnessed excellent conference papers with stellar academic foundations, often demonstrating the latest theories, mostly in the past focusing on gender performative theory, and more recently looking at affect theory. I am astounded by the academic rigor of these papers, and clearly the presenters have excellent experience in textual analysis, but mainly these texts are demonstrating academic potential.
While writing for funded research needs theoretical foundations, and sometimes developing a theory model may be a highly significant outcome, to make impact in the bid you need to articulate real world contexts, that may be messy, slippery and incomplete, but may offer a view or insight into something that we are missing.
In my research area the experiences of LGBTQ asylum claimants came to my attention though researching documentaries. Rather than focusing on representation, or even performance, I started thinking about experience. What were the experiences of LGBTQ asylum claimants in the UK? I had seen documentaries about the experiences of LGBTQ refugees in Europe, such as Exiled: Europe’s Gay Refugees at the same time I had seen the phenomenal documentary Our Journey to Europe which whist does not feature openly gay or queer refugees does frame the use of mobile technology. I then produced a paper called Queer Youth Refugees and The Pursuit of the Happy Object: documentary, technology and vulnerability, published in the book Youth Sexuality and Citizenship. Later I worked with Ieuan Franklin on a paper for Richard Berger who was curating a special issue on youth and refugees for the journal Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture. Our paper was titled ‘Undocuqueer’ movement and DREAMers: activist online space and the affective queer body, which focused on the Undocuqueer Movement in the United States, where undocumented queer youth are struggling for rights.
This experience of new research that linked real world experiences of LGBTQ asylum claimants, made me think more about real world contexts. I wanted to find out what was happening to LGBTQ asylum claimants in the UK. With myself as lead investigator and Ieuan Franklin as co-investigator, we produced the funding application for the British Academy, consulting with Alan Mercel Sanca of LGB&T Equality Network Dorset who had some links with NGOs that supported LGBTQ asylum claimants. So working with a practice oriented stakeholder was incredibly useful, and led me to theorize who might be regional participants in the project. That said since we started the project, many of the participants changed, and in fact we ended up with a very different range of stakeholders. Also because of Covid-19 our project ended up being fundamentally different. We had planned to visit a number of regional NGOs, but it all ended up being done on Zoom. In many ways this was a benefit, as we were able to reach a far wider range of contacts. Added to this over the course of the project we established links with the regional NGOs and formed a prototype network across the UK, and I am pleased to report many of the participants are now supporting us in developing a follow on bid with the Nuffield Foundation.
Having now completed the British Academy project, I feel quite differently about funding applications. As principal investigator, you need to consider who is the best person to do the research, and though hiring our fabulous post-doctoral research assistant Mengia Tschalaer on the British Academy Project, I quickly learned what a pleasure it is to hire someone who is passionate about the subject area, and can be a great asset. At many points Mengia was driving the research as much as Ieuan or I. What a wonderful team member. So:
Point One – maybe you are not doing all the research, and hiring motivated others makes perfect sense.
Point Two – (which is a corollary of point one) – don’t make it all about you, look for needs in society, not necessarily just ways of looking.
Point Three – don’t be afraid to fail in bidding, research is a process not a destination. Even failed bids can lead to great outcomes for you.
On that note one of my failed applications to the British Academy was a proposal for book on the AIDS activist Pedro Zamora. Although this was never funded externally, and it was researched in my own research time with support from the Fusion Fund, this is one of my favourite achievements. Notably when I launched the book at GLBT Historical Society in San Francisco, it felt like a defining moment, especially when I was interviewed in the Bay Area Reporter.
So don’t think of funding applications as destinations that you must reach, but treat each application as a process based journey, where you will develop your ideas, which will be useful, whatever happens.
Writing funding applications is inherently personal, you spend considerable time working on the application, not really knowing if you are going to be successful, but you try.
And in the immortal words of the ethereal Sandy Denny of Fairport Convention, lets always give it ‘One More Chance’
Becoming an external peer reviewer of research funding applications not only provides an excellent way to contribute to academic citizenship, but it is also an excellent way to expose yourself to high quality research, form networks with peers outside of BU, and have access to the latest research taking place.
AHRC have just launched a new round of AHRC Peer Review College recruitment.
In previous years, this has been convoluted with a nomination process and applying through Je-S. As part of UKRI’s EDI strategy, the new process is much more inclusive and streamlined. A key objective of this recruitment exercise is to further diversity AHRC’s membership and cement plurality of voices in their decision-making processes.
Applications across AHRC’s disciplinary remit are strongly encouraged from persons who identify as an ethnic minority, persons with disabilities, persons of diverse gender identities and expressions, and persons identifying with other groups who are currently underrepresented. Applications are also encouraged from people with specific arts and humanities-relevant professional experience and expertise that is currently underrepresented on the College; a full list can be found in the call document.
Timetable
| Applications open | Monday 4th October 2021 |
| Deadline for applications | 4pm, Thursday 25th November 2021 |
| Decisions communicated | Anticipated to be end January 2022 |
| New members in post | 1st March 2022 |
| Induction training | Various dates in March 2022 |
Changes to the recruitment process:
AHRC require applicants to include the name and email address of an administrative contact at BU, as they will use this to advise BU of any successful applications from your institution. If you are interested in becoming a peer review member, please contact me, Jo Garrad.
Environment Editor for The Conversation, Will de Freitas, will hold an online training session for BU on Wednesday 27 October.
The session will run from 10.30am to 11.30am over Zoom and is open to all BU academics and PhD candidates who are interested in finding out more about working with The Conversation.
Learn how to consider the news potential of your expertise, how to look for story hooks and angles from the news, and how to write a quality story pitch to section editors.
The Conversation is a great way to share research and informed comment on topical issues. Academics work with editors to write pieces, which can then be republished via a creative commons license.
Since we first partnered with The Conversation, articles by BU authors have had over 7.5 million reads and been republished by the likes of The i, Metro, and the Washington Post.
Book your place via Eventbrite.
With the COP26 climate change conference on the horizon, insights around how to protect and preserve our environment and deal with our changing climate will be high on the news agenda.
A limited number of 20-minute one-to-one sessions with Will are available from 11.30am – 1pm on Wednesday 27 October, to discuss environment-related story ideas. To request a place, please contact newsdesk@bournemouth.ac.uk.
It’s conference season, so official news is thin, However we have a fascinating change in roles and responsibilities for HE, some updates from the Labour conference and some good news about research funding.
Late on Friday Parliament confirmed that Michelle Donelan’s role will be renamed Minister of State for Higher Education and Further Education. As we explained in last week’s update she shares the skills remit with Alex Burghart MP who is the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Skills). Here is how they share the remit – it is interesting to see the thinking here with WP and student experience in HE being split off (and given to Alex Burghart) and quality and funding staying with MD.
Donelan:
Burghart:
Shadow Universities Minister, Matt Western, critiques the Government’s education policies and states Labour’s approach in this Research Professional article. There is also this more in-depth article by Andy Westwood, Manchester’s Professor of Government Practice looking at where the priorities for policy should be for both major parties.
Here are the summaries (provided by Dods) from some of the most relevant Labour Party fringe events.
Wonkhe report on Kier Starmer’s leadership address: A commitment for research and development spending to rise to 3 per cent of GDP, familiar from both the 2017 and 2019 Labour manifestos, was the only offering in Keir Starmer’s 2021 conference speech for higher education. In a speech that drew heavily on his family background, the leader of the opposition noted in passing that he was the first member of his family to attend university, and spoke about the need to invest in the skills – including digital skills – of young people. You can watch the speech on YouTube or read it online.
Parliamentary Questions:
Politics Home analyses the potential cost for the HE sector to implement the HE Free Speech Bill in Freedom of Speech Bill Could Cost Universities And Student Unions £48m. Excerpts:
Universities and students’ unions could see collective costs of up to £48.1m from the likes of legal insurance premiums to protect from claims that would be allowed under the Bill, according to the Department for Education’s own impact assessment… concerns over the price tag have already been raised by some MPs at Committee Stage.
Familiarisation costs, costs of complying with regulation and enforcement, administrative paperwork costs, and the cost of updating and introducing new codes of practice for student unions could also contribute to the new financial burdens.
Lawyer Smita Jamdar continues to speak out about the Free Speech Bill in the Times’: It’s absurd to use legislation to enforce free speech on campus – A bill to prevent perceived threats to free speech at universities is not the answer.
Student Loan Repayments
The Financial Times (FT) announced the Government plans to reduce the salary threshold level at which graduates start repaying loans. They state it aims to save the Treasury money and push more young people towards cheaper vocational education. [Although when have technical or equipment heavy subjects ever been cheaper?]. …Chancellor Rishi Sunak wants to overhaul student financing in his spending review ahead of next month’s Budget, reflecting Treasury concerns that the taxpayer is footing too great a burden of funding university courses.
Graduates currently begin repaying their loans when they earn £27,295. The Augar Review (2019, still no full response from the Government, promised for the spending review…maybe) recommended the threshold be lowered to £23,000 which was the median non-graduate earnings at the time. While HEPI modelled a cut to less than £20,000.
The FT reports that no final decisions have been taken but one minister said a £20,000 threshold was considered to be “a bit low.”… A figure of £23,000 could save the Treasury just under £2bn a year, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think-tank, while a graduate earning the current threshold would have their take-home pay cut by more than £800 annually, after deductions due to this month’s increase in National Insurance contributions are taken into account.
FT report the DfE as stating it was continuing to consider “the recommendations made by the Augar panel carefully”. Augar also recommended cutting the cap on annual tuition fees from £9,250 to £7,500 — such a cut would be welcomed by students.
There are the usual lines about rethinking HE as the default option and ensuring all those with the talent and desire to attend higher education are able to do so, whilst ensuring that the cost of higher education is fairly distributed between graduates and the taxpayer.
FT: Henry Parkes, a senior economist at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said lowering the threshold would be “virtually indistinguishable from a tax rise targeted at young workers alone”… HEPI director Nick Hillman said the option was better than alternatives, bringing “very significant” savings “without seriously harming on-the-ground services”.
Here is David Willetts’ paper published by HEPI: How to boost higher education and cut public spending.
Willetts was the Universities and Science minister (2010-14) both he and Nick Hillman (HEPI Director) were instrumental in introducing HE tuition fees. Brief summary:
An interesting point on apprenticeships: …higher level apprentices were more white, more male, less likely to be disabled and less likely to be from a deprived area. Social barriers to apprenticeships may be one reason why disadvantaged groups have rapidly increasing levels of participation in higher education which has more diverse and open recruitment.
Willetts is also opposed to the binary divide forcing 16-19 year olds to choose between T levels and A levels. He sees a clear role for universities in the delivery of higher technical provision. He is in favour of the Lifelong Loan Entitlement but caveats that mature students are more averse to loans than younger students, who can see the promise of the graduate route whereas it may be harder for older people to shift career. It is likely therefore that take up of the four-year loan entitlement will be greatest among younger students. This is an opportunity to move to four-year degrees, a historic opportunity to tackle England’s worst education problem – early specialisation.
Wonkhe highlight that Willetts’ paper calls for the repayment threshold of £21,000 would return it to the original recommended level set by the Browne Review. Wonkhe also highlight an aspect that the Government may find pleasing – that providers should be allowed to hold their own graduate debt, and should be supported by the Student Loans Company in contacting their own graduates.
Arguing against the lower repayment threshold Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert warns the Government against possible retrospective changes to the terms and conditions of existing student loan contracts.
MoneySavingExpert.com approached Government to comment on the legitimacy of the FT’s article. The Government spokesperson stated: We do not comment on speculation in the run up to fiscal events. We’ll see what happens on 27 October, although we expect more leaks and the arguments to flare in the run up.
NUS:
With both Martin Lewis and NUS lined up to oppose any retrospective changes to the student loan repayment thresholds for recent graduates the Government may well consider if retrospective changes are a battle they wish to begin. The FT article tested the opinions and reaction very well at a key point before the Treasury makes its move, a deliberate leak perhaps.
Covid Vaccinations
NUS research:
NUS: Despite reports of low levels of vaccine uptake among young people and students a very high number are vaccinated against Covid-19. By August 2021 83% of students had received at least one vaccination and a further 9% either having it booked in or intending to book. Given our survey closed over one month ago, this figure is now likely to be considerably higher.
Parliamentary Question: Visas for students studying abroad (clarification on departmental responsibility)
Lots of news this week on the 2022 exams. Here are the main links:
Wonkhe: The Disabled Students’ Commission has published guidance on disabled graduate employment. Designed to help disabled graduates transition into the labour market, the guidance recommends that universities tailor their employability, career and enterprise guidance to disabled students’ needs. Elsewhere, the guide calls on employers to ensure that work experience and internship programmes are inclusive of disabled graduates.
The Social Mobility Commission launched a sector specific toolkit to encourage socio-economic diversity and inclusion in the creative sector workforce. It aims to widen access to the creative industries for people from working class backgrounds to tackle the ‘class crisis’ in the sector (27% workers from working class background, 23% music and performing arts).
Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.
There are a wealth of specialist and research inquiries and consultations at present. See the policy influence digest for their listings. Contact us if you don’t already receive the digest.
Unistats dataset: Wonkhe – The Higher Education Statistics Agency has published the first iteration of the Unistats dataset for the 2021-22 academic year. The release adds information on graduate experiences drawn from the Graduate Outcomes survey.
To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.
External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.
Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.
JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER
VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer
Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk
We have been waiting for news from Research England about the recurrent RKE grants for this year, confirmation of which has been delayed whilst UKRI waited for BEIS to confirm their budget. There was some initial news yesterday, which is summarised below. Institutional allocations will be published next month but overall there’s an increase in funding available, so hopefully we’ll secure more funding than last year 🤞
Research England letter sent to all VCs today: https://re.ukri.org/sector-guidance/publications/circular-letter-funding-for-2021-22/
BEIS advice to UKRI re: priorities and budget allocations: https://re.ukri.org/documents/2021/guidance-from-beis-for-research-england-financial-year-2021-22/.
If you have any questions, send me an email at jnortham@bournemouth.ac.uk.
Today FHSS’s PhD student Abier Hamidi was notified that the manuscript “HIV epidemic in Libya: Identifying gaps” was accepted for publication by the editor of the Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (JIAPAC) published by SAGE [1]. This literature review as part of Abier’s PhD research included 24 studies: Ten primary research studies, six online news articles, five Government reports, one letter to the editor, one manuscript, one online database. The paper concluded that despite the low-quality data, the literature suggests there is an increase in HIV infection rates in Libya. Culturally sensitive research on sexual activities, women, HIV preventative methods and attitudes of the Libyan public will assist in developing an effective National AIDS Programme, reducing stigma, supporting People Living with HIV (PLWHIV) and decreasing infection rates.
Abier’s PhD project is supervised by Dr. Pramod Regmi (Senior Lecturer in International Health) and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH).
Reference:
Yesterday saw the publication of a new scientific paper on the health care system in Nepal. The latest BU paper ‘Health facility preparedness of maternal and neonatal health services: A survey in Jumla, Nepal’ is a collaboration between academics at the University of Huddersfield, Liverpool John Moores University and the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) at Bournemouth University [1]. This is the third paper led by Pasang Tamang, who is currently a PhD student at the University of Huddersfield [2-3].
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
CMMPH
References
You may have seen the BU Research Blog two years ago congratulating Bournemouth University’s MSc Public Health graduate Hana Dinh on the acceptance of her paper ‘‘Factors influencing engagement in premarital sex among Vietnamese young adults: a qualitative study’ [1]. 
In April 2019 this paper was published ‘online first’ in the International Journal of Adolescent Medicine & He
alth. Last month, two years later, her paper finally appeared in print. Hana’s paper had originally been accepted by this journal in 2018, it was put online in 2019 and now it has been formally published. It can still be a long process for an academic paper to get into print as we have discussed elsewhere [2]. Hence the title of this blog, the question to me is ‘What is the appropriate publication date for this article on my CV?
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)
References:
Reminder: The RDS Funding Development Briefing spotlight will be Wednesday at 12 noon. The spotlight will be on the British Academy Small Grants.
We will cover:
For those unable to attend, the session will be recorded and shared on Brightspace here.
Invites for these sessions have been disseminated via your Heads of Department.
Lots of people news – the latest high profile sector appointments announced as the ministerial shuffling finishes. The Commons sessions highlight the cost the Freedom of Speech Bill may have for the HE sector and there are briefings, reports and lots of interest surrounding student financing.
Haven’t they just had a ‘holiday’? Parliament has entered recess for the party conference season. While this might offer a temporary break from the repetitive and dispiriting Freedom of Speech Bill arguments (“oh no it doesn’t”…”oh yes it does”) we can expect familiar themes to waft around in the media during the Conservative party conference as new ministers and their junior counterparts rush to impress in their new positions.
The ministerial reshuffle continues into this week with the responsibilities of some of the junior ministers still to be officially confirmed. A Government department has undergone a name change to refocus its agenda. The former Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is now the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This statement outlines the new department’s responsibilities with the change intended to embed levelling up commitments and policy on governance in the United Kingdom and elections within a single department which already manages relationships with local communities, local government and the housing sector.
Science, Technology and Research minister Amanda Solloway has been moved to the Whip’s Office. She is replaced by George Freeman (also see this THE article on George).
As you will have spotted from our update last week the Education team had a massive overhaul and only Michelle Donelan, Universities Minister, remained in post. Baroness Barran sits in the Lords chamber with responsibility for the school system.
Here is the top level DfE team as currently stands:
Michelle Donelan will attend Cabinet and has some responsibility for apprenticeships and skills within her expanded ministerial brief. Alex Burghart was appointed as the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills to lead on technical education including the qualifications review and the new T levels but MD’s job description gives her joint responsibility for post-16 education strategy with him.
Guido Fawkes outlines the SpAd movers and shakers including:
The Sutton Trust cabinet analysis tells us that of the 30 Cabinet ministers:
A number of high level positions have recently changed hands or been reconfirmed.
Andy Haldane has now been confirmed as the new Head of Levelling-up within the Government. He is the former Bank of England chief economist and will join as a permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office on secondment from the Royal Society of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) for 6 months. He will head up the Levelling Up Taskforce that will report jointly to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Prime Minister, Boris Johnson MP, said: Andy is uniquely qualified to lead our efforts to raise living standards, spread opportunity, improve our public services and restore people’s sense of pride in their communities. Andy Haldane said: Levelling up the UK is one of the signature challenges of our time. It has also been a personal passion throughout my professional career.
Health Education England announced the re-appointment of its chair, David Behan, and that of his non-executive colleagues on the board, Liz Mear and Andrew George. All three will continue in their roles until 2024.
Dr Jo Saxton has taken up her post as the new Chief Regulator at Ofqual (replaced interim Simon Lebus). One of the key challenges facing the new chief regulator will be tackling grade inflation, as well as finalising plans for the 2022 assessment series. Dr Saxton said: As chief regulator, pupils and students will be at the heart of every decision we make at Ofqual: their best interests will be my compass.
Heidi Fraser-Krauss is now in post as the new Chief Executive of Jisc. She was previously Executive Director of Corporate Services at the University of Sheffield and replaced Paul Feldman who is retiring after six years in office. Her appointment was announced in June.
6 new non-executive directors have been appointed to the UKRI board. Their backgrounds provide a blend of business, scientific and technological expertise. They will work with UKRI’s Chair, Sir Andrew Mackenzie, to support and challenge UKRI to maximise the benefits from government investment into R&D and help secure the UK’s status as a global science superpower. They are: Sir Ian Boyd, Dr John Fingleton, Professor Anthony Finkelstein, Priya Guha, Nigel Toon, and Ruwan Weerasekera.
The Student Loans Company is moving its headquarters to Glasgow.
Freedom of Speech in HE remains big news this week as consideration of the Bill continued with the final evidence hearings this week. Here are the most notable points in brief:
Cost
Misuse: Matt Western:
Cost and Misuse
Ranking: Universities Minister Donelan: the amendment seeks to introduce a requirement on the Office for Students to publish an annual report that would assess and rank higher education providers on their compliance with their freedom of speech duties.
Fines: Michelle Donelan confirmed that the level of fines levied by the Free Speech Commissioner would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny – no further detail was provided.
Impartiality: The independence of the intended Free Speech Commissioner was also discussed.
Exemptions: Wonkhe have a short blog explaining why Michelle Donelan has chosen to exempt the students’ unions attached to individual colleges at Oxford and Cambridge from the Student Union Freedom of Speech duties proposed by the Bill: It’s one rule for most SUs and no rules for Oxbridge
It comes as no surprise that the House of Commons Library have published a raft of new briefings relating to student finance. MPs are busy buffing up on student finance ahead of the spending review and party conferences. And the sector awaits the Government’s decisions on final outcome of the Augar review rather than the drip drip of changes and warnings of change to come that have been received so far. While it might not have been big news this is the one waiting in the wings.
I will confess I’m a Commons Library brief fan. Even so do take the time to read Student finance in England: How much would it cost to bring back grants? Spoiler: about £0.7 billion for £3k grants if it replaces the loan and isn’t in addition to loans. The brief also explains why receiving a grant wouldn’t change the repayment amounts for low income students – only the minority that go on to become high earners would see a reduction in loan repayments (because lower income students will not fully pay the debt back before the cut off). However, it would likely cut the debt for disadvantaged graduates from £60k to £45k – although one has to ask whether this would really tip the scales to progress to HE for debt adverse graduates.
If we’ve whet your appetite the Commons Library has more briefings in this series –
Both Abolition of maintenance grants in England from 2016/17 and The value of student maintenance support gives more background on changes to maintenance support.
They also have an introduction to student finance in England providing the basics which will be suitable if you are new to this field.
There is also How much do graduates pay back? which outlines the current financial transactions and repayments from graduates.
Meanwhile two new reports have been published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) – one on the tuition loan system, and one on post-HE geographical mobility and graduate earnings.
Tuition Loan system: The impact of living costs on the returns to higher education was commissioned by the DfE and finds that it would be essentially impossible for the Treasury to save money on university tuition fees in England without hurting graduates on average earnings in favour of their wealthy peers. Key findings and recommendations:
Ben Waltmann, senior research economist at IFS, said: With a series of tweaks to the student loans system, successive chancellors have painted themselves into a corner. The system is expensive but there is essentially no way to raise more money from it without hitting borrowers with average earnings more than the highest-earning ones. If [Sunak] wants to raise more from the highest earners, the chancellor will need to use the tax system.
Nick Hillman, Director of the HEPI and the architect of the 2012 regime during his SpAd years, said the IFS’s analysis confirms that many of the changes being suggested would make the system less progressive: It’s absolutely crucial, however, not to lose sight of the fact that half of all people still do not benefit from higher education. So any assessment looking at graduates only does not show the true distributional impact on the country as a whole. That sounds like a call to back the Government’s graduate metrics and value for money judgements.
Student Loans Company – withdrawals and guidance note: Wonkhe summarise the Student Loans Company (SLC) data release on early-in-year student withdrawal notifications between academic years 2018-19 and 2020-21. The overall withdrawal rate across England, Wales and Northern Ireland rose by 6 per cent compared to the previous academic year, with a total of 32,364 students leaving their courses before completion. However, the total number of withdrawals still lies below the number seen in 2018-19.
The SLC also published an information note setting out the 2021/22 funding arrangements for undergraduate and postgraduate students following the lifting of covid-19 restrictions.
Graduate Mobility: Returning to the second IFS report: London calling? Higher education, geographical mobility and early-career earnings (again commissioned by DfE) this finds that HE enables graduates to move to places with better career prospects, but that this also leads to a ‘brain drain’ from the North and coastal areas.
HE leads to higher geographical mobility:
Graduates move to places with better labour market opportunities.
Ethnic minorities and those from low socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to move, and the effect of higher education on mobility is much weaker for these groups.
Graduates gain higher earnings from moving.
Patterns of mobility exacerbate regional inequality in skills.
Xiaowei Xu, Senior Research Economist at the IFS and an author of the report, said: In moving from more deprived areas to London and other cities, graduates improve their own career prospects, but this exacerbates geographical inequality in skills. As well as ‘levelling up’ educational attainment across the country, policymakers should think about how to attract and retain talent in places that are currently less well-off.
Wonkhe have a blog on the IFS report: Should graduates move to get better jobs? Excerpt: What’s coming through here for me is more evidence that having a university in your area is a great way to have more qualified young people staying in your area – be they originally from there or from elsewhere.
And on the dichotomy: for the good of some local areas, we could get better at keeping graduates in the area they studied. But for the good of graduates, we should make it easier to move away. Traditionally, individual benefit has trumped societal benefit in Conservative policy – I look forward to one arm of government telling graduates to stay where they are to level up struggling areas, and then another labelling the courses low quality because they lead to low salaries and unskilled jobs.
HEPI have an interesting personal blog which looks at how a student attended a combination of access programmes which both informed and supported successful application and settling in at the chosen university. The individual and parent seem self-motivated and found a range of opportunities they confidently accessed. The blog makes suggestions for universities on what is important.
NEON report on a BBC article which highlights admissions bias. The BBC reported this week that out of the 132 UK universities, listed by UCAS, just nine had a higher offer rate for black applicants. The article also highlights that, in Wales, all institutions had a higher offer rate for white, rather than black, applicants. The article highlights the experiences of three Welsh pupils as they talk about the factors that influence their future choices. Commentating on the data Dr Jason Arday, associate professor of Sociology at Durham University, said the figures highlight that higher education is “systematically disadvantaging particular minority groups” through unconscious bias of admissions teams and programme leaders.
Interestingly, David, one of the interviewees stated: When you’re looking for universities you have to look for a place that suits you. Sometimes looking for that place might not be on paper the best university, but it’s the best university for you…I know that’s not good or fair, but it’s what I’ve done to have the best university experience.
Anecdotally this is recognised as a regular student phenomenon, after all it is all about personal choice. However, the Government would see this as a failing of the sector, they would like David to feel comfortable and apply to the highest tariff institution his ability would stretch to. It is unrealistic to expect HE to be all things to all people but where do we draw the line? Is the fact that David feels like he belongs less at one institution a failing, is it a combination or personal factors, or is it a demographic which perpetuates and if so – how big a factor is admissions in perpetuating the diversity of the student body?
TASO is tendering for the extension of its research portfolio into supporting student mental health, reducing equality gaps for disabled students, reducing equality gaps in employment and employability, survey scale validation for widening participation and success. They’re all calling for a diverse set or organisations to join the evaluation panel. We can look forward to the conclusion of the successful tenderer’s work in the above challenge areas in the future.
A short insightful Wonkhe blog from Martin at the National Deaf Children’s tackles the difficulties of the continuing Covid related restrictions on campus. It covers problems with mandated mask wearing and auto captioning on remote learning. Important factors which relate to the OfS’ agenda about a student’s experience of quality within their HE institution.
The Institute for Government published Levelling up an analysis paper in which they examine what the Government actually means by ‘levelling up’. It stated the levelling up agenda lacks clear objectives, with policies often contradicting ministerial rhetoric about decentralising power. It highlights these three aspects for the Government to urgently address:
They also note that many of the levelling up policies give most decision-making power to central government – which jars with government rhetoric. The Levelling Up Fund, Towns Fund and Community Renewal Fund are all centrally run and rely on local areas bidding for money. This gives central government a lot of power in deciding where funding goes and what types of projects are eligible.
These analyses recognise that the Government is due to publish a white paper on levelling up this autumn and suggests a further five questions the white paper should address. More content here.
Accompanying the paper is also the explainer report on the Towns Fund
Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.
Non-graduate esteem: text Wonkhe describe Education divide a Social Market Foundation publication championed by the former Leader of the House of Lords Baroness Stowell which characterises the gaps between graduates and non-graduates as “the most important division in Britain today”. Noting evidence that a person’s level of education is currently the best predictor of voting behaviour in the UK – and the “domination” of politics, media, and business by graduates – the report will argue that the non-graduate majority often feel “ignored and excluded”.
Stowell recommends that politicians and businesses should do more to “restore the social norms” that previously offered non-graduates esteem and respect in society – and that those holding non-graduate jobs such as those in public transport and retail should be seen as authority figures. There are also calls for employers to offer non-graduates opportunities to progress and lead.
Student Loan calculator: Wonkhe – The Institute for Fiscal Studies has released an interactive calculator for examining how different reforms would affect student loans in England. The calculator produces estimates of the costs and consequences of changes to variables such as the loan term, the repayment threshold, and the interest rate. The Guardian covers the tool.
Careers: Wonkhe tell us – The House of Commons Library has published a research briefing on careers guidance in English schools, colleges and universities. The briefing covers the current state of careers guidance and how the Skills for Jobs white paper plans to strengthen existing services.
Emergency contact: The Information Commissioner’s Office blogged about Sharing personal data in an emergency – a guide for universities and colleges.
UCAS Policy Groups: UCAS is looking for new members to join their nation-specific – English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish – Policy Groups. These new groups will represent the diverse interests of UCAS’ customers and stakeholders, and their progression to UK post-secondary education including higher education (HE) and apprenticeships. Their principal role is to influence and inform UCAS’ policy positions and supplement the work of UCAS Council, which advises the UCAS Board. UCAS invites new member applications from across the sector and aims for these advisory groups to be a diverse community with different views, approaches and insights – colleagues from a broad range of backgrounds, demographics and cultures are therefore encouraged to send their expressions of interest. The groups will meet twice a year. Members will be expected to be active in the sector, engage with the group, contribute to its activities, and seek views and feedback from their own networks and other groups. The current list of members, vacancies and Terms of Reference can be found on the groups and forums web page. Contact the policy team if you are interested in this opportunity.
To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.
External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.
Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.
JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER
VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer
Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk
Mid-week parliamentary excitement as Boris reshuffles his ministers. Williamson is out…
The UPP Foundation have a new report challenging the Government’s metrics which work against the regional levelling up agenda. The Free Speech Bill continues its march through the Commons and …
After months of on/off speculation about a reshuffle, we finally got one last week. It started slow, with just three high profile ministers moved or removed – Gavin Williamson out completely (now that this year’s exam cycle is finished), Dominic Raab moved to Justice from the Foreign Office after the Afghanistan chaos, and Robert Buckland out, seemingly to make way for Raab.
But then it got more wide ranging with a lot of moves at a more junior level. The Institute for Government website has a chart showing the extent of the moves (they also have lots of analysis of experience, gender etc).
But the headline for us is that Nadhim Zahawi is the new Education Secretary, Michelle Donellan has stayed in place and added post-16 education and skills to her job and will also attend Cabinet, and Amanda Solloway has also gone (to be a whip) and has been replaced by George Freeman.
You can read the Wonkhe article about the new Secretary of State here and the Research Professional one here.
The HE Freedom of Speech Bill was treated to three days of evidence and debate this week. Various amendments were considered and written evidence has been published.
Wonkhe blogs;
The potential for confusion, duplication, conflicting rights and remedies for the same issue does not appear to be being addressed. What will result is a lot more guidance and probably not a lot of change. Not that it is clear that change was needed…..
The Bridge Group and the UPP Foundation published Staying local: understanding the value of graduate retention for social equality. Set within the context of the Government’s focus on LEO data (longitudinal education outcomes data) and the current Government focus on defining the value of courses by the salary the graduates earn this report highlights the failing of both the aforementioned metric – the local context. Both metrics fail to acknowledge the regional salary disparities, socio-economic background of the area in which a HE institution operates, and the students for whom other factors are more important that moving to a lucrative position in a big company in a big city.
The report tackles the definition of a successful graduate outcome. It makes familiar arguments over the geographic-social role of a university – stemming the graduate brain drain away from the area, providing talent for economic and cultural growth, improving the health and wellbeing of the area. The civic agenda is as expected, after all the UPP Foundation did set up the Civic University Network which brings the place based agenda and values the role of universities as anchor institutions.
Universities cannot simply be job factories, important though their role is in creating the workforce of tomorrow. To focus on graduate salary alone as a benchmark for success has the potential to create the perverse outcome of incentivising graduate mobility away from the very towns in which they were educations, and have the potential to contribute to. Rt Hon Chris Skidmore MP (former Universities Minister).
As you’d expect the report has much to say on the importance of the retention of the graduate workforce for levelling up of workforces and opportunities across the country. And it predicts:
The importance of commuter students and addressing their needs, often overlooked in salary data, will also be a key policy agenda for the future. Rt Hon Chris Skidmore MP (former Universities Minister).
As you’ll have spotted above former Universities Minister Chris Skidmore wrote the foreword for the report and he has separately blogged about the findings for HEPI: Now is the time to recast universities’ relationships with their local areas.
Research Professional have excellent coverage of the report:
Richard Brabner, UPP Foundation Director, said: Universities have been criticised for pulling talent away from the regions and towards metropolitan cities, but the reality is much more nuanced. All universities play a key role in their local economies, and should be judged on the basis of meeting the values and expectations of their graduates, rather than simply crude salary data.
Research Professional conclude: With the spending review now set for the end of October, to be accompanied by the government’s full response to Augar, it would be an optimistic gambler who put any money on the government moving away from crude salary data as a proxy measure of course quality. Expect more references to ‘pockets of low quality’ rather than a celebration of those hard-working graduates who are doing so much for their local communities.
Suicide: The OfS published Working together on suicide prevention in HE. There is a compilation of resources and a topic briefing which draws out some of the advice from the Suicide Safer Universities guidance and presents examples from providers detailing their approaches to suicide prevention. The examples also highlight the benefits of working with the local community, including involvement in regional suicide prevention networks and community response groups. The briefing draws on the 2018 Office for National Statistics suicide research. Data:
The ONS data also analysed student deaths by suicide compared to the general population and found:
Tax: Research Professional have an interesting article on the implications of the Government’s national insurance increase of 1.25%. Here are the implications for graduates:
The Education Policy Institute (EPI) published a report on the narrowing of the 16-19 curriculum breadth and employment outcomes. The proportion of students with A and AS levels from at least three of the main subject groups such as humanities, sciences, maths and languages, has halved since 2010. Despite the narrowing graduates with greater subject diversity at A level saw a boost to their earnings in their 20s. The report notes that England has one of the narrowest curricula in the developed world as students specialise in only a small number of subjects from age 16, the specialisation then continues as the student progress into HE.
EPI state:
Also this week – the Independent Assessment Commission has published a report on the future of assessments and qualifications in England
Parliamentary Question: The effect of the high level of A*s at A-level on university admissions for students – this received a factual response.
Deaf Students: The National Deaf Children’s Society released data over the summer highlighting the gap between deaf and hearing students.
34% of deaf students received two A-levels or equivalent in the 2020 exams compared to 55% of hearing students. The gap has increased from previous years.
The National Deaf Children’s Society stated that deafness is not a learning disability and the gulf between deaf and hearing students is an injustice now ingrained in the education system; they call on the Government to act swiftly.
Care & Estranged Voices: Portsmouth University produced the ‘From Our Experience’ podcast miniseries. Each podcast was created by current students with their own lived experiences of care or estrangement, the podcasts are all about the student’s own voices. The students chose the podcast topics and content. A rare opportunity to listen to the student voice in an easily accessible format.
During the summer the Higher Education Statistics Agency published HE graduate outcomes: open data 2018 to 2019. The difference in earnings between men and women remains stark, at 15 months post-graduation:
The statistics are caveated by noting that the response rate for the Graduate Outcomes survey isn’t as high as would be liked yet (c 40-50% response).
Meanwhile, this week, the Behavioural Insights Team have published updated evidence on what works to reduce the gender pay gap for employers.
Two new HEPI blogs:
Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.
Creative diversity imbalance: Wonkhe – The All Party Parliamentary Group for Creative Diversity has launched a report in partnership with King’s College London and the University of Edinburgh examining equity, diversity and inclusion in the creative sector. The Creative Majority finds that those from middle class backgrounds are twice as likely to be employed in the creative sector than those from working class backgrounds. The report presents policy options for how to address this imbalance such as not using unpaid interns.
To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.
External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.
Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.
JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER
VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer
Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk
BU staff can login below:
New eBook published in April
Café Scientifique Tuesday 4 June 2024 – How can we become more resilient in the face of multiple risks and hazards?
MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2024
Research Information Network
Horizon Europe News – December 2023